Grava v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
205 F.3d 1177 (2000)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Dionesio Calunsag Grava (defendant) entered the United States in June 1991 from the Philippines and sought political asylum. In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied Grava’s initial asylum request because he failed to prove persecution as required by Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). When the INS began deportation proceedings, Grava requested political asylum and withholding of deportation. In his asylum application, Grava claimed he was subject to persecution as a whistleblower. In the Philippines, Grava served as a policeman, starting his career in the police in 1966. In 1972, Grava joined the customs office and was eventually promoted to a lieutenant. Grava managed to uncover several smuggling operations, including operations involving his supervisors and other policemen and customs officers. The press documented Grava’s efforts to combat smuggling. Grava received threats and harassment from his former supervisors, Marcos Loyalists, Communist insurgents, and the Philippines military and police, and these threats prompted Grava to flee to the United States. Grava’s application noted that his former supervisors, who were implicated in the smuggling operations, were still in power and that one supervisor allegedly killed a fellow customs officer. The immigration judge (IJ) denied the asylum application, and Grava appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, criticizing Grava’s decision not to testify and his reliance on his written asylum application. The BIA also found that, assuming Grava’s written and oral testimony about his whistleblowing was true, Grava still failed to show that the persecution he suffered was on account of his political opinion. Grava appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that he was persecuted because he criticized the government and took action against its corruption.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.